Wednesday, October 09, 2013

[completed on 3 October 2013. 250 pages. Published at Lulu on the same day]

---for purchase info., go to the bottom of the page ---

Dedication

To
all lovers of
Holy Scripture: God's inspired, infallible Word and revelation. May
its infinite wisdom and knowledge fill you up and satisfy your
grace-originated yearnings for truth, spiritual wholeness, and union
with our Lord and Savior.

Introduction

The Bible is a
complex, lengthy collection of 73 books. My aim – simple in concept
but far more difficult in organization and execution -- is to make it
easier to quickly find biblical answers to theological questions that
are of perennial importance. I presuppose the inspiration and
infallibility of the Bible, and this book is for Christians who
accept those notions.

This effort is
more “catechetical” (what
we Catholics believe) than “apologetical” (why
we believe it); though to some extent it is the latter, too, insofar
as “biblical prooftexts” constitute data in favor of one position
over another. Apologetics appears in the way I select and categorize
the topics. More often than not, these are what are called “Catholic
distinctives”: topics that are regarded as “controversial” by
non-Catholic Christians. I make no pretense to “proving” Catholic
doctrines herein. I'm merely providing a quick reference source and
food for thought.

One of my specialties as a Catholic apologist is
“biblical evidence for Catholicism” (the name of my blog). The
idea for the present volume came to me in a flash. I was trying to
conceive of a fresh way to present “biblical evidence” not only
for Catholicism but for Christian theology in general. It's sort of a
summation of the best of the hundreds of examples of “biblical
evidence” that I've presented in my 40 books (as of this writing).

The notion that arose in my mind was to simply
provide Bible passages (usually one verse; sometimes a few
together) that would be (in my humble opinion, anyway) the very best
“answers” to a large number of one-sentence questions.

The format might remind one of the popular TV
game show Jeopardy, where the contestants are given a piece of
information and have to come up with a question that it is the
“answer” to. While compiling it, I looked at Bible passages and
devised questions that the passages “answered”.

I readily confess that the questions themselves
introduce an element of subjectivity: my own conception of both the
questions and the “best” Bible passages that could be construed
as an “answer” to them. That was the fun aspect of the project,
and what makes this book different and unusual.

I think somewhere in the back of my mind, I was
also perhaps vaguely recalling, particularly, The Question and
Answer Catholic Catechism (New York: Doubleday Image, 1981), by
my mentor, the late great Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. He divided his
book into major categories, then subcategories, and finally into
1,701 individual questions. His answers were relatively simple
“catechetical” replies that present the basic Catholic teachings
or “answers.”

Likewise, my book consists of 18 broad categories
(Roman numerals), and 200 numbered subcategories, under which the
1,001 particular questions
are found, with each answer being a Bible passage.

The numerical format is simple. It is the section
number (of 200), followed by a dash and then the number of the
individual question in the section (e.g., 32-13). I suppose one
could also add the larger category number, leading to a (St. Thomas
Aquinas') Summa Theologica-like reference: III, 32-13.

All questions presuppose that the answer will
come from the Bible; hence, no need to keep repeating over and over,
“Where in the Bible . . . ?” or “What does Scripture teach
about . . .?,” etc. I shall try to keep the questions as simple and
direct (and on one specific topic) as I possibly can.

One objection that will certainly be aimed at
this volume, is that it is mere “prooftexting”: a word that has a
largely negative connotation of “citing Scripture in isolation and
out of context to bolster positions already held on other grounds.”
My reply to that charge, however, is as follows:

1) All systematic theology (indeed, even papal
encyclicals or conciliar documents) entail citation of Bible verses
(usually single ones, as in this book): and these can always be
quibbled with by someone, because in citing a passage, it is
presupposed that it has relevance to the topic at hand (and sometimes
there can be honest disagreement about that).

2) Works that are trying to simplify theology as
much as possible for the masses (including catechisms or like-minded
literature) will tend to be of this "summary" nature. The
question is whether simplification is a good thing overall or a bad
thing. I think there is no question that it's good.

There is always time to go more into depth on
issues, as a student or inquirer progresses in theological
understanding. In my own collection of 40 books, I devote entire
volumes to individual topics (for example, Eucharist, soteriology,
Mary, the communion of saints). I've written two entire books and
lengthy sections of several others, just on the topic of the falsity
of sola Scriptura ("Scripture is the only infallible
authority"). One can always consult those or other similar
books, articles, etc., too.

3) A "prooftext" can be cited properly
or improperly, and that is a discussion in and of itself. An improper
citation would be something taken out of context or interpreted
wrongly, with regard to other relevant passages on the same topic, or
historic and/or Church teaching (a heterodox or non-orthodox
interpretation). That has to be -- or could be -- argued, which is
beyond the purview of this particular book. Of course, I claim that I
have done it properly and in line with the teachings of Holy Mother
Church.

4) Here is an example of improper "prooftexting."
Protestants (especially evangelicals) notoriously, and almost
ubiquitously, cite the following passage as a supposed "proof"
of sola Scriptura:

2 Timothy 3:16
(KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:

It's a long discussion, but in summary (and I've
written more on this general topic than any other), nowhere in this
passage do we find a notion that only Scripture is infallible
or that it is the sole theological norm or standard for
doctrine (the exclusive claim). Scripture itself also plainly asserts
the authoritative, binding nature of apostolic tradition and the
Church (as I document in this very book and several others).

Therefore, the Catholic argues that to use this
passage as an alleged "proof" of sola Scriptura is
"prooftexting" in the very worst sense of the word: it is
yanked out of the context of the entire Bible and what it teaches on
the topic of the rule of faith, and it violates historic orthodoxy:
what was taught all along, up until Protestantism in the 16th century
introduced something far different. Things are read into the passage
that simply aren't there, and we call this, "eisegesis"
(reading in things rather than getting things out of
Bible passages: "exegesis").

Now, in this volume, I submit that I have
properly cited 2 Timothy 3:16, because I do so in line with
historic Christian, apostolic teaching, and not in contradiction to
what the Bible teaches in other passages. I don't read anything into
it that isn't present. Thus, it is classified as follows:

I. Bible and Tradition
(Authority)

4. Infallible Authority
of Holy Scripture

4-6. Is Scripture
inspired, or “God-breathed”?

The passage clearly teaches inspiration of
Scripture: a thing that all serious Christians readily agree with.
But it does not teach sola Scriptura: a notion that is
improperly eisegeted into it, out of a prior bias and predisposition
formed by Protestant premises.

I hope readers find this work enjoyable,
educational, and edifying: the “three E's” that I strive to
achieve as a constant goal in all of my theological writing. The
marvelous treasures in the Bible await all of us: inspired
revelation from the Mind of God, via the human biblical writers.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).